<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Kathy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I don't agree with Michele's letter and don't see that there are actually free expression issues here. Although it is good that you circulated this letter,
to keep us informed, we have already started a dialogue about this issue in connection with the NCUC statement regarding human rights issues in new gTLDs.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">As we all know, DNS strings must be exclusively registered to someone. Whoever that person/organization is should be able to determine the level of "closedness"
or "openness" of the registrations under it. This is true at the top level, second level, third level, whatever. Just as free expression does not mean that the IGP website (internetgovernance.org) has to allow anyone and everyone to publish their opinion,
or register a domain at the third level under it, so ownership of a TLD does not obligate anyone to open its registrations. If they want to, fine. If they don't, it's their right.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The DNS space is vast. For any given string, there are always more or less good substitutes. Giving someone .cloud does not give anyone a monopoly over cloud
services, clouds in the air, use of the word cloud in other contexts, cloud-like brands, cloud images, or…cloudy thinking. The idea that these closed business models create a monopoly on anything is just wrong. The idea that any generic term must be "open"
means something very inimical to free expression: it means that ICANN would have to dictate the business models and procedures of whoever registered a given string. It would also mean that ICANN would have to dictate what was a generic word and what was not,
because it is not always obvious. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Valuable domains will be created not by the word or string itself, but by the investment and value that go into its operation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I don’t see how we can say that end users - and noncommercial users specifically - are inherently better off if the entity that wins .MUSIC allows open registration
or creates a controlled name space in which the second-level is specific artists, or restricts it to internal users, or some other business model. Either way might please users, either way might not work out. Take any word in any language of your choice:
let's say, CHOICE as an example. Can you really contend that free expression is better served if .CHOICE _<i>must</i>_ allow anyone and everyone to register under it? What if it is acquired by Planned Parenthood and they want to use it to promote their own
views, and thus limit how the name space is used? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">You know as well as I do, Kathy, that generic terms have been and will continue to be registered at the second level (books.com, cloud.com etc.) In a world
where .com constituted over half of the domain name space, those generic terms were "closed" and probably more economically significant than registering a new TLD in a world of 1000 new TLDs will be.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">What is really going on here? I believe that these so-called open v closed and "free expression" concerns are just a cloak for certain business interests to
try to gain a leg up on the competition for valuable names. Applicants with business models oriented around large numbers of individual registrations (e.g., registrars such as Mr. Neylon) are trying to use the regulatory process ex post - re-write the rules
in mid-stream - to gain an advantage over applicants with business models that involve more controlled name spaces. I refuse to play along.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">--MM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kathy Kleiman<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 05, 2012 3:18 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [NCSG-Discuss] Closed New gTLDs - "Closed Gardens"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi All,<br>
I would like to share with you a letter being circulated by Michele Neylon, the wonderful Blacknight registrar (and the only registrar in Ireland). It deals with new gTLDs that are "closed gardens" -- generic words that some companies have applied for as new
gTLDs and will keep "closed" -- not open for general second-level domain name registration. These include some applicants for .BLOG and .CLOUD, among many others.<br>
<br>
It's a powerful letter with strong free speech/freedom of expression arguments. Concerns are shared by registries, registrars and registrants -- and Michele is looking for Signatories.
<br>
<br>
Please take a moment to look at the letter, and let Michele know if you can sign on (name, organization). Michele is cc'ed on this email, and can be reached at
<a href="mailto:michele@blacknight.ie">michele@blacknight.ie</a> <br>
<br>
----- <br>
Here's the full version with current signatories : <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZUNlookOWyaSW8lXfi_37zVFsVk9xcxncvmE0uwPEFY/edit">
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZUNlookOWyaSW8lXfi_37zVFsVk9xcxncvmE0uwPEFY/edit</a>Here are two quotes from the
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><br>
<span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">Here are two quotes from the letter:
</span><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif""><br>
"Based on our collective industry experience, we are of the opinion that the underlying intention of Section 6 was to allow for the operation of closed gTLDs only under very defined circumstances. </span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif""><br>
</span><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">Specifically, that closed gTLDs should be reserved for only those strings in which the applicant possesses established (i.e., legally recognized) intellectual property rights, basically
brand names. We believe that this interpretation of Section 6 is inherently logical especially in view of the discussions that preceded the opening of gTLDs -- which focused, in very large part, on expanding choices and opportunities as well as promoting
innovation, for Internet consumers worldwide."</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif""><br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">"Further, generic words used in a generic way belong to all people. It is inherently in the public interest to allow access to generic new gTLDs to the whole of the Internet Community,
e.g., .BLOG, .MUSIC, .CLOUD. Allowing everyone to register and use second level domain names of these powerful, generic TLDs is exactly what we envisioned the New gTLD Program would do. In contrast, to allow individual Registry Operators to segregate and close-off
common words for which they do not possess intellectual property rights in effect allows them to circumvent nation-states’ entrenched legal processes for obtaining legitimate and recognized trademark protections."</span><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif""><br>
</span>----<br>
Best, <br>
Kathy <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Kathy Kleiman<br>
Internet Counsel, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth<br>
Co-Founder, NCUC<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>